Halli:OgreMagi: ZipSplat: OgreMagi:Ah, another sock puppet. You need to stop trying. We have enough information in hand. And given the fact that the NSA has basically admitted to everything, your denying it makes you look the fool.

What information do you have? Be specific.

Seriously? You are asking for specifics in a thread discussing the NSA admitting to wrong doing with a link to the actual article? I've seen people try very hard to avoid the facts, but you might possibly be setting a new standard.

You might be interested in knowing that this article has already been debunked multiple times in this thread.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does- no t-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42141_CNET_Updates_Article_C on tinues_to_Make_False_Claims

Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet.

italie:Halli: OgreMagi: ZipSplat: OgreMagi:Ah, another sock puppet. You need to stop trying. We have enough information in hand. And given the fact that the NSA has basically admitted to everything, your denying it makes you look the fool.

What information do you have? Be specific.

Seriously? You are asking for specifics in a thread discussing the NSA admitting to wrong doing with a link to the actual article? I've seen people try very hard to avoid the facts, but you might possibly be setting a new standard.

You might be interested in knowing that this article has already been debunked multiple times in this thread.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does- no t-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42141_CNET_Updates_Article_C on tinues_to_Make_False_Claims

Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet.

The article itself has now been discretely updated at the bottom by the author, and the title has been changed. Does that work for you?

Halli:italie: Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet

Uh huh. There were even quotes from the congressman. You guys are farking nuts.

You are completely missing the point. You are referencing websites / blogs with known agendas...to debunk a claim made by a website founded by people with known agendas.

The only thing nuts about this is that people are still arguing points that may or may not have merit. Who is being quoted accurately? What is potentially coming across out of context? What of it is actually fact?

If you want to prove a point cite something substantial, something tangible, something verified.

italie:Halli: italie: Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet

Uh huh. There were even quotes from the congressman. You guys are farking nuts.

You are completely missing the point. You are referencing websites / blogs with known agendas...to debunk a claim made by a website founded by people with known agendas.

The only thing nuts about this is that people are still arguing points that may or may not have merit. Who is being quoted accurately? What is potentially coming across out of context? What of it is actually fact?

If you want to prove a point cite something substantial, something tangible, something verified.

They are quoting the congressman who started this whole bs. Are you retarded?

Halli:italie: Halli: italie: Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet

Uh huh. There were even quotes from the congressman. You guys are farking nuts.

You are completely missing the point. You are referencing websites / blogs with known agendas...to debunk a claim made by a website founded by people with known agendas.

The only thing nuts about this is that people are still arguing points that may or may not have merit. Who is being quoted accurately? What is potentially coming across out of context? What of it is actually fact?

If you want to prove a point cite something substantial, something tangible, something verified.

They are quoting the congressman who started this whole bs. Are you retarded?

AGAIN..."They"..who the hell are "They". What are "They" quoting. Are "They" quoting the congressmen in context? Do "They" have the journalistic integrity to be trusted in doing so?

For that matter, do the bevy of Congressmen quoted even know what they are talking about?

My point is, you people are arguing "facts" back and forth, that may or may not be fact. THAT is retarded.

You don't know. Until we have something more substantial, everything is speculation to draw a conclusion from.

italie:Halli: italie: Halli: italie: Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet

Uh huh. There were even quotes from the congressman. You guys are farking nuts.

You are completely missing the point. You are referencing websites / blogs with known agendas...to debunk a claim made by a website founded by people with known agendas.

The only thing nuts about this is that people are still arguing points that may or may not have merit. Who is being quoted accurately? What is potentially coming across out of context? What of it is actually fact?

If you want to prove a point cite something substantial, something tangible, something verified.

They are quoting the congressman who started this whole bs. Are you retarded?

AGAIN..."They"..who the hell are "They". What are "They" quoting. Are "They" quoting the congressmen in context? Do "They" have the journalistic integrity to be trusted in doing so?

For that matter, do the bevy of Congressmen quoted even know what they are talking about?

My point is, you people are arguing "facts" back and forth, that may or may not be fact. THAT is retarded.

You don't know. Until we have something more substantial, everything is speculation to draw a conclusion from.

italie:Halli: italie: Debunking a story you find questionable with links to a weblog and a news aggregate isn't really helping your cause.

//Cause everything on the internet is true///Read that on the internet

Uh huh. There were even quotes from the congressman. You guys are farking nuts.

You are completely missing the point. You are referencing websites / blogs with known agendas...to debunk a claim made by a website founded by people with known agendas.

The only thing nuts about this is that people are still arguing points that may or may not have merit. Who is being quoted accurately? What is potentially coming across out of context? What of it is actually fact?

If you want to prove a point cite something substantial, something tangible, something verified.

This is why I don't believe Europe exists.

I've never been there, and everyone who tells me about it has an agenda.

I'm not even sure Obama is real. I've never met him, news has agendas. I might be in a truman show. Or Bush is still president and its all a conspiracy. Obama is just cgi. Thats why he is called 0bama.

Wait. Strong women? I thought we were talking about Sarah "Half term? I quit!" Palin.

How many full terms did Obama complete in the US Senate?

I don't remember Obama quitting to make money of gullible idiots.

You must have a shiatty memory then ... because he's spending more money now than he ever could prior to 2008. I'd outline it for you but I'm too busy reading his $60 million Africa trip itinerary; it's a good thing the nation's not in an economic tailspin!

Actually, we are globally viewed, atm, much as is that fat, bald, snarling guy at the end of he bar with all the tattoos and the knife in his belt, sucking down beer after beer and daring anybody to look at him.

Failed to close Gitmo? -- and only had to sign a paper, don't forget. Let's go with "Chose not to close Gitmo."

Didn't even bother to read most of your responses, but this one alone tells me you're not worth listening to.

Congress prohibited him from closing Gitmo. You know, the people who make the laws and allocate money? The President is not a dictator.

That one told you that he wasn't worth listening to?

This one was the one that sealed that deal for me:

GeneralJim: Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Oh, great... a chance for homosexual sexual harassment in the military

Cool. Another area in which you are ignorant. If ignorance were a martial art, you'd be 10th Dan.

Now, clearly, the media and the President don't want this out because it hurts their pro-gay agendas, but homosexual sexual harassment has blossomed in the military. You might know this if you ever stepped out of your echo chamber. "Don't ask, don't tell" was repealed at the end of September, 2011, and sexual harassment jumped by more than a third in 2012. Here's the breakdown:

Wait. Strong women? I thought we were talking about Sarah "Half term? I quit!" Palin.

How many full terms did Obama complete in the US Senate?

I don't remember Obama quitting to make money of gullible idiots.

You must have a shiatty memory then ... because he's spending more money now than he ever could prior to 2008. I'd outline it for you but I'm too busy reading his $60 million Africa trip itinerary; it's a good thing the nation's not in an economic tailspin!

Hmm ranting about Obama taking presidential trips and how they cost money. A teabagging derper retard would only do that.

Failed to close Gitmo? -- and only had to sign a paper, don't forget. Let's go with "Chose not to close Gitmo."

Didn't even bother to read most of your responses, but this one alone tells me you're not worth listening to.

Congress prohibited him from closing Gitmo. You know, the people who make the laws and allocate money? The President is not a dictator.

That one told you that he wasn't worth listening to?

This one was the one that sealed that deal for me:

GeneralJim: Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Oh, great... a chance for homosexual sexual harassment in the militaryCool. Another area in which you are ignorant. If ignorance were a martial art, you'd be 10th Dan.

Now, clearly, the media and the President don't want this out because it hurts their pro-gay agendas, but homosexual sexual harassment has blossomed in the military. You might know this if you ever stepped out of your echo chamber. "Don't ask, don't tell" was repealed at the end of September, 2011, and sexual harassment jumped by more than a third in 2012. Here's the breakdown: